Trailer For Patrick Stewart’s Sinbad Movie Fails To Impress July 30, 2010
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity, Sci-Fi, TNG , trackback
Last summer it was announced that Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Patrick Stewart had signed on for the film Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage. Not much has been heard from this production since, but now the first trailer has been released featuring a voice-over from Stewart, check it out below, and check out the not-so-favorable reactions too.
Stewart in Sinbad movie – reaction not good so far
Here is the new trailer for Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage:
The film is a low-budget production and instead of CGI, appears to be using stop-motion animation in an homage to the legendary Ray Harryhausen. Stewart’s voiceover suggests he is playing an older Sinbad, thinking back on his youth and fifth voyage. The younger Sinbad is played by Shahin Sean Solimon.
Reaction to the trailer has not been positive so far. WorstPreviews calls it "Terrible", Cinebland calls it a "crappy knockoff", Blogomatic wonders if Stewart did the film "as a favor", and Entertainment Weekly suggests "it’s supposed to look kinda bad"
More information on the film at www.facebook.com/SinbadMovie
Loading ...
Comments»
Oh, I don’t know. I think it looks perfectly fine… cool, even!
I look forward to it as Sinbad was always a childhood favorite of mine!
Dynamation?
Damn, and I put all my money into Real 3D.
Maybe Sir Patrick needed the money.
Personally, I am really over the over-usage of CGI in today’s films.
Particularly, I am really missing the beauty of handmade model spacecrafts in our space-oriented science fiction films.
This is not to say I do not appreciate the technology of CGI, but I defy anyone to tell me the spacecraft models in STAR TREK and STAR WARS look better in CGI than they did in the “old” model days. I just don’t buy it.
Hey man…a check is a check and I’m sure he took it….
Well, it’s obvious that Entertainment Weekly is absolutely right –it is “supposed to look kinda crappy”, as the visual clues were all over the place, not only in the very dingy and imperfect film countdown to the Trailer’s opening, but even throughout the trailer itself, with lines running through the video like old film artifacts.
This film is not going to go anywhere in theaters I don’t think, but it may do some business on Home Video. I think there are enough people who will be fascinated by the novelty of it, particularly fans of Ray Harryhausen’s work, prompting them to want to see it, and the animation itself really wasn’t bad, and if anything looked superior to the stop motion animation that Harryhausen used in his movies.
#2
“Maybe Sir Patrick needed the money.”
Highly unlikely.
Less is more? Is that the theme here?
#3. MC1 Doug
“Personally, I am really over the over-usage of CGI in today’s films.”
Me too. They’ve taken a great tool in a filmmaker’s arsenal and have overused it to the point of provoking nausea rather than fascination and appreciation.
“This is not to say I do not appreciate the technology of CGI, but I defy anyone to tell me the spacecraft models in STAR TREK and STAR WARS look better in CGI than they did in the “old” model days. I just don’t buy it.”
Well, I agreed with the first half of your post at least. They can now do things that look more natural and seamless than was possible with models, and just think of all the overhauls and makeovers George Lucas felt it necessary to give his first “Star Wars” trilogy to make it more “acceptable” and realistic looking for modern day audiences and future generations. And consider how the FX work in ST II compares to last year’s Trek movie –the FX in ST II aren’t bad mind you, but the bar has been considerably raised since then, and it’s for the better in terms of what can be achieved, but not necessarily in terms of how heavily a studio and/or director choose to rely on the technology. All too often nowadays they’re more interested in providing eye candy to “Wow” their audience with rather than giving them a solid story to enjoy, and that’s unfortunate.
There is a fine art to stop motion. Harryhausen did it right. If you can’t be at least as good as that, you shouldn’t be doing it at all.
I cite the use of CGI in ‘Star Trek Insurrection.’ The Enterprise looks flat. Mind you, the film was made 12 years ago, but I still prefer a model any day.
Even citing last year’s TREK movie, I think a physical model would have looked better than the CGI, which yes, were impressive, but I still could tell it was CGI. A model just has more depth… but
I guess it is a matter of personal taste.
Im a big fan of Ray Harryhausen so this seems right up my ally. I like CGI, but I also like models, animation, Stop Motion, miniatures ect… So I dont think the above trailer looks all that terrible.
Looks interesting to me.
Well, I think Sean Connery has a few clunkers under his belt since being knighted, so Sir Pat is allowed….
Can you say CRAPTACULAR?
Those old Sinbad movies are still entertaining to me.
I’ll put my vote in for the physical model starships. Even the giganto-budget CGI in ST09 didn’t measure up to the real thing, even if it did allow them to do things which would’ve been more difficult (not impossible) with model photography.
To blazes with your CGI, Hollywood. The stop-motion skeletons in “Jason and the Argonauts” are a true example of artistry in film.
Looks great to me. Can’t wait to see it.
Model makers, however impressive, lack one thing that CGI artists can do: create an object, citiscape, terrain, etc, in full size detail.
The Enterprise was always a model trying to pass off as the real thing. In ST09, the Enterprise was real, albeit only in the computer.
=A=
The movie looks horrible….no lens flares!
The CG in Trek 2009 was great. The Enterprise looked awesome. Insurrection was just a cheap looking movie all around. That village set looked so fake.
Also, people slamming movies just cause CG is used in to irritate me.. If the movie was good, do you hate it just because CG is in it? Really.
When a trailer begins with wretched typography, I always worry a little. There are limits to how much you can horizontally squash a font before you just have to ask yourself: why didn’t I spent a couple of minutes picking out a narrower font? I mean, duh.
On the other hand, at least it’s not that same “Dull CGI brushed-steel Bank Gothic” that it seems every third movie has been using in its trailers for the last couple of years :/
Was there anything in that trailer? 2 shots of a fake looking monster make this movie look like something on the SyFy channel.
I thought models were used partially in the st09 movie?
Dynamation is what Ray Harryhausen does. Yesterday he turned 90. Happy Birthday Mr. Harryhausen!
#24: At one point, there was a guy slowly walking. Then he sat down Then we saw someone else briefly. She didn’t have to sit down, as she was already sitting.
Awful, whether trying to be or not. I loved Sinbad as a child as well, and… well… I guess since I REALLY don’t want them just to make a “Clash of the Sinbad 300″, this movie is their only option. I’m mean, come on. It’s not like anyone can make an originally good sword and sandals movie these days. That’d just be too hard.
I don’t think many of you realize what he’s done. This actually has me excited!
Makes me even more impressed by “SHARKTOPUS!”
I think it looks ….. ok. What struck me was how old Patrick Stewart sounds. Or is that dramatic inflection, or intentionally trying to sound old? Or is he just old?
I dont know… doesn’t look that bad. I’m not familiar with Sinbad (other than the comedian) but I may see this!
The effects are not the problem, the actor and the music is. This guy sure is not Kerwin from seventh voyage of Sinbad.
3 – Amen!
I never really enjoyed Sword and Sorcery movies. They always seemed like someone filmed it at a Renaissance festival.
Actually, I feel bad about making fun of the trailer. I have no idea whether that guy can act. I mean that bald guy in the trailer. I mean that bald guy we see in the trailer… Oh hell, not Sir Patrick, the other one.
Anyway…
It kinda looks like the emphasis is on making this film look more ethnically authentic than the Hollywood or Harryhausen ones. And I agree that the old Harryhausen ones are still great fun to watch. I doubt I’ll pay money for this, but I’ll Hulu it someday and give it a shot.
That just made my night.
Best. Cyclops. Ever.
Thank you Trekmovie.com
Could this be Bollywood? by any chance?
I hope so.. I hope they all break out in song… like this!
http://uk.movies.ign.com/dor/objects/40236/halo/videos/halomovie_trl_040110.html
ignore the inevitable Xbox ad, the vid will commence
Its obvious its a tribute ot the Harryhausen flicks and traditional film making. I don’t see what the fuss is to be honest. We see virtually none of the acting of the movie in trailer so how can people determine if its actually bad?
I get it now the guy they chose is supposed to be a god of war, kratos wannabe. Would rather see a true sequel to the HarryHausen films.
Stink-O-Vision technology is finally here!
If they included flares, lots of them, I’ll, nah I still won’t see this.
Ok, I take back what I said above.
I did some digging and this film is made by the lead actor, Shahin, who, it seems, is also responsible for one earlier effort called Djinn, based on Middle Eastern myths (Shahin himself is of Iranian origin), which he wrote, directed and starred in (vanity project anyone?).
Djinn is absolutely trashed on IMDB, save for its first two reviews, posted by one time reviewers who, lets face it, are likely to be Shahin himself. I say this because if you read his IMDB bio its reads as if he’s some kind of celebrity (which clearly he isn’t)…..and it reads as if he’s written it himself. As someone who has spent years moving in Iranian upper class circles I can say this dude comes across as one of the modern era expat Iranian richkids who lives in a little fantasy bubble where he is talented and a noteworthy individual. I hate to come down hard on someone I don’t know, but I’ve seen it all too often before. He seems to be one of these people who thinks he’s a skilled film maker, making grand masterpieces set in the back drop of middle eastern legend, when in reality it seems he’s thus far only managed to turn out less than average schlock generated through a lack of talent.
Now, with this backdrop I am even more curious as to how in the hell Sur Patrick has come to be involved with it???????????
It seems a bit tough to hammer the film on the strength of that trailer, which looked interesting to me.
And Ray Harryhausen was a genius. I have so much respect for his work.
Anthony this is one time I am disagreeing with you. I thought the trailer looked great, and the stop motion is lovely.
I would actually see this.
So this guy is kinda like an iranian Ed Wood? hahaah…What a concept!
I also dont know why the trailer is being so trashed…Not the best trailer I have ever seen but it doesnt show much that is bad…I agree Patrick does not sound like his best….was he trying too hard to sound old or not Captin Picardish? I dunno….
Lotsa hints the scratchy countdown plus the IN DYNAMATION line is big time hints/tributes to the Harryhausen Style and dynamation is a copyrighted word that Harryhausen and his produceer Charles H Schneer used–Plus those Harryhausen trailers always went way outta their way to act like it was the most spectacular movie you will ever see coming right at ya…Obviously this is a homage to all that….
As others have said the quick shot of the cyclops/whatever doesnt look bad..it looks smoother than hand animated stop motion….did they use go motion maybe?
Harryhausen is a genius….Clash of the Titans the first one was his last work…In some ways technology aided Harryhausen too much his last works while still brilliant were so clear they just doesnt look quite right…the older work like Seventh voyage etc…worked better I think cuz of less focus….less smoothness somehow it worked better…
Anyway yah nothing in this trailer to show the movie is great or bad or good…its just a homage to older movies…and I wonder if they hadda pay Harryhausen to use the term dynamation…either that or its owned by whatever movie company owns the old movies now…
Golden Voyage of Sinbad, the wood Masted Figure that comes to life from the bow of the ship and fights the crew was some of his best stop motion…that which is not alive much normally looks a lot cooler when animated..Same movie the Kali Goddess statue fight was Brilliant with kali holding 6 knives etc….Choreography in those two scenes also done by Harryhausen of course Is brilliant..He understood movies and animation like no one else…Its all too easy on computers these days but the New Clash is not nearly as good as the old one….
I will wait to see more for this movie…looks like someone who appreciated Harryhausen…I liken him to Jack Kirby who worked for marvel comics….both mostly unsung heroes with more creativity and genius than anyone ever gave them credit for…Still think Disney/Marvel should be paying Kirbys family millions for making movies based on thor, avengers, hulk, Fantastic Four, captain Ameria All created and or co created by Kirby…Harryhausen..also a genius…many of the top filmakers today grew up on Harryhausens monster movies loving them and decideing to do films thanks to them…
@33 Ditto. It’s the actor. Fascinating how Sir Patrick could read the phone book and give it gravitas with his voice.
For me it’s not about cgi vs. stop motion, it’s about having a great story.
I think it looks neat.
Ok, there’s the grand total of nothing in the trailer and people are up in arms?
for the love of god.
at least it looks better and more real than a new george lucas star wars effort…
stop-motion FTW!
Yet still the trailer looks kinda crappy…
I don’t think that’s Patrick Stewart’s voiceover. I heard instead that it was done by the guy who plays the head of the CIA in American Dad.
Well, I just think it’s refreshing to see a Sinbad production where Sinbad is actually played by a Middle Eastern actor.
And retro stop-motion? If that really is what they’re using (and I’m not convinced, since those FX shots weren’t jerky enough), then I’m all for it. Stop-motion is a lost art.
I have no substantive comment on the trailer. It seems as if it could be an okay film, but since everyone else is trashing it, I feel that it’s just “not cool” not to trash it as well, and yet we all know that going along with the crowd in this fashion could turn out to be premature. So, no comment.
However, I do think that “GIANT FLICK FILMS” is an interesting name, much as Dave Letterman’s WORLDWIDE PANTS is intended to be humorous (except that the “L” and the “I” in “FLICK” could be misinterpreted as one letter if read from a distance; I’m sure this was not intentional, however).
I hope this is a good film. I’m about to read more on the Internet about it. I’m a fan of Harryhausen’s work just as a matter of nostalgia.
@50 Alf, in pog form:
“…the guy who plays the head of the CIA in American Dad”
oh you mean that bloke called… uhmmm… Patrick Stewart?
I think Alf was kidding.
Hat tip to Hat Rick!
;-)
I think it looks interesting.
I’ll maybe give it try…
Ray Harryhausen was a genius, and CGI has gotten me to the point where I can’t stand it. Looking forward to this.
#46 If you think Sir Stewart’s narration is good here, then go to YouTube and search for his old Pontiac Grand Am commercials. He made you really want that car.
Echoing some other sentiments here…..I don’t see what the problem is.
“Even citing last year’s TREK movie, I think a physical model would have looked better than the CGI, which yes, were impressive, but I still could tell it was CGI. A model just has more depth… but
I guess it is a matter of personal taste.”
true. in my opinion, models generally look like plastic models. the way you feel about excellent model work is how i feel about equal quality cgi.
regarding the sinbad movie, it seems like pure schlock.
This is obviously a very small indie picture, a labor of love & homage to Willis O’brien & Ray Harryhausen. Patrick probably did it because he liked the idea & to help the filmmakers. I think it looks neat.
A Sinbad movie without cheesy stop-motion video just wouldn’t be right.
I’m a little curious what prompted Patrick to do this low-budget thing. certainly he didn’t need the money? maybe it’s a pet project of his to work with films like this to help aspiring movie makers. You have to admit, this project is getting a second look because of Patricks name…..
#58 Duno about across the pond but he’s selling BMW’s in the UK these days!
Awful. Simply awful. Maybe Patrick was blackmailed into this. It’s the only thing I can think of.
If it’s a good tale, I don’t care what special-effects techniques they use. Just tell me a good, story, please, and stop with all the 3d crap already!
Big fan of Ray Harryhausen. I think it could be good. If Patrick is involved I am sure he had an excellent reason……
#52: “[...] could turn out to be premature. ”
Trashing the trailer cannot be premature as the trailer is right there, right now.
Anyone trashing the _film_ is insane, but we’re used to insanity around here.
ah, nothing like a big fat chunk of limburger cheese.
Good giref. How can anyone pass judgment on something like this…you are allowed only the barest glimpse! And yet people can determine the whole movie will suck based upon mere seconds of imagery? Sheesh.
68, true, but I was referring primarily to the film (”It seems as if it could be an okay film…”).
In a sense, trashing the trailer lends itself to trashing the film, whence the trailer came. Thus, the two are strongly conflated, and in this case, I am not willing to say anything substantive, either, about the trailer.
If I had to limit my comment to the trailer, I would say that it was intriguing. It seems more “artsy” than mainstream. And the person portraying Sinbad is not the “Hollywood film star” stereotype that most audiences are used to seeing.
If the criticism is as to SFX, then to me, there is too little of it to really criticize.
Besides, has anyone seen The Fantastic Mr. Fox? It had stop-motion photography as well, and yet few critics would fault it for that.
#71: “Besides, has anyone seen The Fantastic Mr. Fox?”
Yup. Good flick.
Not too bad, but the countdown reel at the beginning is WAY OFF. Film countdowns NEVER countdown to “0″, and rarely show the number “1″.
“1″ is the starting point, not to be seen as a visual.
I’m not going to judge this book by its cover. There’s not enough in this trailer to tell if it stinks, guys. What I can tell, is that there is not a whole lot of film in the can to produce a trailer. And that’s kind of worrisome for the movie. I just hope it’s not Sir Patrick Stewart’s next “Wild Geese 3.” :)
Want to see a trailer where you know the movie is going to be craptastic? Here’s a link to my post with the trailer of the epic, “Sharktopus.” I quote from a YouTube comment, “It’s Jawsome!”
http://berniebasementblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/sharktopus-movie-trailer.html
Wes Anderson is great, isn’t he, 72? After getting a prize from the National Board of Review, his acceptance speech was animated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTMSJ_qDC6o
#67: “Big fan of Ray Harryhausen. I think it could be good. If Patrick is involved I am sure he had an excellent reason……”
Oh, I wouldn’t be to quick to say that. Patrick Stewart participated in a TV miniseries version of Jules Verne’s ‘Mysterious Island. It really was a lame production. He was, as usual, his distinguished self, but the rest was pretty non-descript.
I think well stop talking about CGI as soon as everything is Ray traced cgi. You guys are correct all the non model trek movies where cgi was used to show a starship looked Flat because the depth and detail was there. But if you look at some Ray traced cgi I think we going to get way past that of modern chi of today.
CGI has taken the place of story in some films.
#78
“CGI has taken the place of story in some films.”
Why Michael Bay even bothered to hire Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman for “Transformers” I and II, I don’t know. But at least they got paid.
I would also say that CGI has sometimes replaced imagination and creativity with lazy attempts to bombast the audience with flash and dazzle.
@78
Avatar springs to mind.
I love Avatar. It’s one of the best sci fi films to come in a long time. Better than some cheapie Bruce Willis sci fi movie that usually comes out. Didn’t Generations and First Contact use models?
I don’t understand how the Transformers actually transformed from being whatever they were supposed to be (trucks? cars? whatever) to giant robots, and back. And that includes, for example, the SR-71 robot and the villains as well as the good guy villains. At least with the toys, they could actually physically prove the fact that they transformed. With the CGI Transformers, there are like a million moving parts whirring around at the same time and you never know where they’re supposed to go or went they came from.
I would like to see a scientific explanation of how a semi truck cab can become a thirty-foot tall robot in the Transformers movies, including a diagram and slo-mo graphic of how the parts fit together, etc. Seems to me that it could be that two or more of the parts occupy the same place at the same time when folded.
I’m pretty sure they don’t actually fit together and it’s just hand-waving CGI effects that are physically impossible to do (unless you had alien technology). Then again, maybe a wizard did it.
hey hattrick u reminded me of t2 where ahnold explained to the kid that the t1000 could only change into items similar to his own mass–soo based on that logic ur right how do they git so freakin huge? Robot wheaties maybe?
82. They explained it in the movie with the Allspark. The allspark can change sizes and the robots can too. It’s not that hard to figure out.
i love the retro look. this, and
’sharktopus” are my picks of the season.
I think the T-1000 stayed pretty much the size of Robert Patrick throughout, didn’t it?
#75: “Wes Anderson is great, isn’t he, 72?”
Frequently great, never less than good :)
#79: “Why Michael Bay even bothered to hire Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman for “Transformers” I and II, I don’t know.”
Kindred spirits, artistically speaking.
“I guess it is a matter of personal taste.”
true. in my opinion, models generally look like plastic models. the way you feel about excellent model work is how i feel about equal quality cgi.”
I still think an instructive CGI-vs.-models comparison is that between the two versions of Battlestar Galactica, since many of the same designs appeared in both series. The original, with FX by John Dykstra, used impressive large-scale models in the STAR WARS mode that, when photographed, looked mostly like impressive, large-scale models. The CG models in the remake–lit, textured and rendered by Zoic, one of the best in the industry for such work–looked and acted like real spacecraft.
“Kindred spirits, artistically speaking.”
Youch.
I think CG works in the fact that you don’t have to see the same shot of the model flying by the camera millions of times like in the old Battlestar Galactia, or even in the Star Trek TNG series. In many cases the model never moves, it’s just the camera moving.
I prefer models and stop motion. I think the stop motion looks very realistic. Even King Kong looks more real than over half of the CG today. I admit, I may be biased, since my friend was was the one doing the stop motion. Watch his independent film “In the Fall of Gravity” and tell me that it doesn’t look good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PacDj_7GX3M&playnext=1&videos=oAqOKAwjB0k&feature=sub
I want to see this film, for the return of stop motion as visual effects tools and Patrick Stewart.
90. Looks like animation to me.
#89: “I think CG works in the fact that you don’t have to see the same shot of the model flying by the camera millions of times like in the old Battlestar Galactia, or even in the Star Trek TNG series.”
I have no preference for this SFX or that SFX, but the distinction you’re making isn’t inherent to the forms. There’s nothing inherent to models that causes footage to be re-used, and there’s nothing inherent to CGI that prevents it. That’s a budget-driven choice; both kinds of shots cost money.
92. I think BOTH CG and models can be used together, but I don’t care if something uses just CG. As long as the story is good, who cares?
I have grown up in all the current stages of movie effect usage. From the late 60’s to the present. Models are still better but it depends on the effective use of building and camera use. CCG is good as it let’s you do things you could not do before. The stop motion is a masterful effects that only a few have achieved with great success.
Still, I think this movie is a SYFY intended production and Stewart is an actor and will work as an actor like every other actor. And we don’t need anymore shots at Bay or Lucas when discussing something completly different. There is plenty of that on other sites!
CGI is a wonderful compositing tool, but I’ve always been disappointed by ILM’s decision to go 100 per cent CGI. In a film like Sucker Punch, I can understand the use of CGI, but I still think the ship FX have more believability in the early Treks than the later ones!
That said, the new Battlestar Galactica’s FX look like models, so it’s about how you use it, I guess.
But it’s way too easy these days for people to cop out and use CGI in some sequences, for, say, a floating robot, when a physical model would look better on on wires which could then be painted out on computer!
#93: “As long as the story is good, who cares?”
Exactly, yes. Were you under the impression that we disagree on that?
#95: “But it’s way too easy these days for people to cop out and use CGI in some sequences, for, say, a floating robot, when a physical model would look better on on wires which could then be painted out on computer!”
As far as I’m concerned, they don’t even need to paint out the wires :)